More Evidence Surfaces on Romney and Muslims

Greg Sargent discovers a contemporaneous account of Mitt Romney swearing off the idea of putting a Muslim in his cabinet from before this issue became controversial and Romney started denying he'd ever said any such thing:

So when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently addressed a group of a prominent local conservatives at a Las Vegas fundraiser, George lobbed the first question: “If you are elected President,” he asked, “will you include any Muslim members in your cabinet?”

In the seconds before former Massachusetts Governor Romney responded, you could have heard a pin drop.

His (admittedly, very smooth) answer in a nutshell? “Not likely.”

Now unfortunately we don't know what the exact terms of his "admittedly, very smooth" answer were from this account, but it's clear if you read on that people who think Muslim candidates should be considered weren't happy with his response.

And I'll note once again that for Romney this isn't a merely hypothetical consideration. I'm not sure that there are any Muslim Democrats who stand out as obviously choices for cabinet jobs (which isn't to say you couldn't find someone qualified, but there's not an obvious choice), but it's not at all the same on the Republican side. UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is a Muslim and he's serving the incumbent administration in a position that's traditionally been a waystation for people on their way up to cabinet appointments or agency chief jobs. It'd be really odd for a Republican administration to not consider him, and repugnant to not consider him because he's a Muslim and there aren't enough Muslims in the country to make them deserve a cabinet spot.

Defense Department photo by Spc. Michael Pfaff

Comments

On what planet is Romney's position an electoral negative? No Muslims in Cabinet? Is it possible to lose votes with that position?

Posted by Ikram | November 28, 2007 12:15 PM

How about including all the facts?

Romney Denies Vowing No Muslims In Cabinet
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/main3544666.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 12:18 PM

Debrar, if you actually read Matt's post, you would see he does include that fact. But you would have to actually read it.

Posted by Rickm | November 28, 2007 12:23 PM

If there aren't enough Muslims in America to justify a cabinet position, there sure aren't enough Mormons to justify a presidency.

Posted by Nat | November 28, 2007 12:36 PM

One other Muslim who might also merit Cabinet-level consideration is Elias Zerhouni - the Director of the National Institutes of Health under this administration. He has run the NIH since 2002 and has been pretty openly Muslim the whole time.

Posted by Nathan Hale | November 28, 2007 12:41 PM

I also wonder whether or not Mitt's Muslim Ban would extend to Arab-Americans generally. If so, what would have happened to Gen. Abizaid or Mitch Daniels in a Romney administration?

I guess Khalilzad and Zerhouni have proven to be too competent and independent to be considered by a Romney administration...

Posted by Nathan Hale | November 28, 2007 12:47 PM

It'd be really odd for a Republican administration to not consider him,

For the Ls Vegas event, where did Romney say he wouldn't consider including a Muslim in the cabinet? Nowhere that I can see.

All this is saying is that Romney doesn't think it is likely that Khalilzad would be given a cabinet post; it isn't saying that Romney would not consider Khalilzad for a post.

As I commented yesterday, if Matthew thinks is a question whether Romney will consider Khalilzad for a post, maybe someone who writes for a big, important political magazine could just call up the Romney press office and ask.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2007 1:03 PM

On what planet is Romney's position an electoral negative?

Apparently on whatever planet Romney resides, given his attempts to deny it.

Posted by Glenn | November 28, 2007 1:09 PM

Al's hackery is really dialed up to 11 on this one.

Posted by Steve | November 28, 2007 1:11 PM

Debrar, Romney boldy lying about what he has said repeatedly is not a "fact."

Mitt's bigoted views toward American Muslims tracks perfectly with his views of Muslims in general. This is a guy who says things like this:

But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shi’a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

As MY pointed out months ago, that is just batshit crazy.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 28, 2007 1:18 PM

Let's be fair. I'm sure if you asked him if he would consider Khalilzad, he'd say yes. Do you think he wouldn't just because it would contradict something he said previously? This is Romney we're talking about.

Posted by ibid | November 28, 2007 1:20 PM

Rickm:

Unless there's a hidden part of this article that is not visible to all but you, I did read its entirety -- and if you had read the link I cited, you would see that parts have been left out in the article we are currently blogging on. Read the cited link, and then get back with me.

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 1:22 PM

Woody Bombay:

And you don't think we have a problem with certain radical groups?

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 1:25 PM

Ibid is right. Romney will take a stand against muslims in his cabinet right up until, and after, he actually appoints one to it.

Posted by crack | November 28, 2007 2:22 PM

Debrar,

That's not even a relevant question. The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, is not at all a radical group. (Sure sounds scary, though!) And Shi'a and Sunni - don't we like one of those? Or both, or one now and the other maybe a week for now, and would they ever unite? This kind of "All the Muslims are banding together to take over the world" talk is 1) crazy, 2) dangerous, 3) not smart strategically, 4) really crazy, and 5) very, very, very dangerous. Oh, it's also dangerous and crazy.

Romney has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to global politics, Islam et al. He strings together a lot of scary words, but the result is jibberish. But you apparently take his ignorance for steely-eyed vigilance.

Given that this is his view of Islam, it's not at all surprising that he would rule out working with a Muslim. Of course, Romney being Romney, tomorrow he will probably pledge to put two Muslims in his Cabinet and say "Oh no it's not!" when someone points out the flip-flop.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 28, 2007 2:33 PM

A terror front for Hama

CAIR + Omar Ahmad + the Muslim Brotherhood, etc

"CAIR and its founder, Omar Ahmad, were named as members of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted coconspirators in a recent federal terror trial in Dallas targeting the Holy Land Foundation. Prosecutors say that's a terror front for Hamas. A founding director of CAIR, already serving time in another terror case, was charged in the case, which ended in a mistrial. But prosecutors say they will retry it".

http://www.aina.org/news/20071128010637.htm

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 2:59 PM

I read the story link - this is not evidence, it is innuendo, or don't you understand the difference, Yglesias?

No quote from Romney, just an interpretation, by a biased writer with an agenda, that Romney meant "not likely." What does that even mean, "not likely?" Does it mean anything?

NO. It is extremely unclear, and only means something by assuming the worst. Nothing to even faintly support this guy's assertion.

My biggest fear for this country? That influential people like you, M.Y., continue to spread innuendo and rumor as evidence and information. And that your readers actually lap up your bull sh*.

It's sure fun to blog this way, without any sense of professional ethics, standards, or responsibility.

Posted by Jprice | November 28, 2007 3:05 PM

There are some swing-states where Muslims make up a big bloc vote such as Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennslyvania.

Posted by Dareen B | November 28, 2007 3:05 PM

You can parse this any way you want, but what does it say about Romney that he can't bring himself to say the easy, obvious, noncontroversial nothings that he absolutely has to say in response to a question like this UNLESS he's deliberately appealing to anti-Muslim bigotry or is so deeply into it that he can't help himself?

Posted by CJColucci | November 28, 2007 3:09 PM

Matt,
Fareed Zakaria is also a not too outlandish potential pick for a security position in a Republican admin and he's also a muslim so it's not just Zalmay. Yet another example of Romney trying to escalate the struggle with extremism into a clash of civilizations for electoral gain.

Posted by pt | November 28, 2007 4:02 PM

CAIR + Omar Ahmad + the Muslim Brotherhood, etc

that's insane.

by that logic:

Larry Craig + Mark Foley + Ted Haggard = The GOP is a front organization for middle-aged white homosexuals !

Posted by cleek | November 28, 2007 4:20 PM

I'm not sure if "muslim-americans" make a big bloc vote anywhere, because the muslim identity in the US is pretty weak (and I'm technically a muslim). There's an arab identity, an Iranian identity, a pakistani one, etc. so if you make bigoted comments about muslims you'll piss them off, but not to the point that they care. The pakistanis and iranians here in the US are mostly middle class and professional or wealthy, while arab-americans are themselves divided into wealthier subgroups (e.g. lebanese) and poor more recent immigrants (e.g. egyptians). A lot of them would vote republican for economic or social reasons, anyway. But again, to stress, there is no big muslim bloc. There are more Chinese-Americans alone than there are muslims, and the vast majority of Arab-Americans are Christian.

Posted by Persian | November 28, 2007 4:34 PM

Well cleek, read more -- you seem to think this is so humorous:

"The reality is much complicated," reads their report issued Wednesday. The groups and nations that make up the "Islamofascist" threat include al-Qaida, al-Qaida in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian government institutions that they control, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran."

excerpt from:
Report: 'Islamofascism' blinds U.S
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2007/11/28/report_islamofascism_blinds_us/6439/

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 5:12 PM

So you really think that the Muslim Brotherhood is so innocent, huh?

"Throughout its history, the Saudi funded CAIR has refused to condemn HAMAS, giving credence to charges made by critics and borne out in government documents that it is tied to the terrorist group via a complex of associations leading back to the Muslim Brotherhood."

CAIR Refuses To Condemn Hamas
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=cair11.27.07.htm

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 5:31 PM

Oh my, it's a link war!

Summary: Even as Western commentators condemn the Muslim Brotherhood for its Islamism, radicals in the Middle East condemn it for rejecting jihad and embracing democracy. Such relative moderation offers Washington a notable opportunity for engagement -- as long as policymakers recognize the considerable variation between the group's different branches and tendencies.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86208/robert-s-leiken-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood.html

Never mind the irony that the UPI article Debrar links to is about the danger of doing exactly what Mitt Romney does:

The term "Islamofascism" dangerously obscures important distinctions and differences between groups of Islamic extremists, says a counter-terror think tank.

And, of course, this is all detracting from the main point of this thread, Mitt Romney's bigotry.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 28, 2007 5:33 PM

And, of course, this is all detracting from the main point of this thread, Mitt Romney for president 2008!!!

Posted by Debrar | November 28, 2007 5:42 PM

By the transitive property...

BIGOTRY FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by Rickm | November 28, 2007 6:49 PM

National Review says that another attendee of the fundraiser confirms Ijaz's account, i.e. that Romney wouldn't even consider having a muslim in cabinet.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjI4OWYyZDAwNWU1YTYzMTEwOTkwZWIwMGRiYzNhYzI=

Posted by Jacob | November 28, 2007 7:10 PM

CAIR Refuses To Condemn Hamas.

If refusing to be interrogated by evil, little, shits of your ilk is some kind of test I'm part of the Muslim Brotherhood to somehow.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 28, 2007 10:16 PM

The Muslim Brotherhood is a bit of a catch-all phrase that is used to classify all groups with some connection to al-Banna's original group. Even within the original Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, there is a somewhat more female-orientated moderate wing of social organizers (soup kitchens, schools, orphanages, etc.) and a more radical, male-orientated wing. However, many of the radicals have long been in prison ever since Moubarek came to power, meaning that the Muslim Brotherhood has all of these cliques that have little to do with each other and have different views on the state, their purpose, religious doctrine and power in general.

Posted by Reality Man | November 28, 2007 10:44 PM

Also, remember that MY actually voted for Romney for governor in Mass. He's not just some random Romney-hater.

Posted by Reality Man | November 28, 2007 10:47 PM

cleek:

Well, given some of the rumors now swirling around Trent Lott's "sudden and mysterious" resignation from the Senate, I think you may have hit the nail upon the head.

Posted by RKU | November 28, 2007 10:53 PM

Oh, Reality Man, that's all so nuanced and complicated. Brain hurt! Let's kill them all and let God sort them out.

Posted by Woody Bombay | November 28, 2007 11:22 PM

I refuse to condemn Hamas - except to complain that they blow up Israeli civilians when they should be blowing up Olmert and the rest of the Zionist thugs...and while they're at it, the Fatah thugs...

I guess that makes me a member of the Muslim Brotherhood! Will they be surprised!

Morons.

Meanwhile, look at the bulldog jowls on those two morons in the picture. Do you REALLY want someone who looks like that running this country? These guys look like Mafia goons or SS camp guards or New York cops. You see guys like that on the street, shoot first as a matter of personal security before they can attack you.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 29, 2007 1:15 AM

I think you don't like links because they make a point you don't want to mention:

"The Brotherhood, which has been banned since 1954, currently holds 88 seats in the 454-member lower house of the parliament.

Authorities have increasingly cracked down on the Islamist group since December, including sending 40 of its top financiers and businessmen to a military tribunal on charges of money laundering and SUPPORTING TERRORISM."

Egypt arrests 11 members of outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and two Christian activists

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/10/africa/ME-GEN-Egypt-Arrests.php

Posted by Debrar | November 29, 2007 9:24 AM

"In September, when a Post Metro desk reporter described the Brotherhood merely as “a conservative worldwide Islamist organization,” CAMERA noted that the group, founded in Egypt in the 1920s, is anti-modern, anti-Western and anti-Jewish.

It has inspired, among other movements, Hamas and al-Qaeda. Moore, most likely, is better informed on this score than the Metro reporter".

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2007/11/moore_from_molly_the_elderly_m.html

Posted by Debrar | November 29, 2007 9:30 AM